Some Animals Are Criminally More Equal

So I came across a couple of examples which I am laying out here, of Criminal Conspiracies to violate the Law by social justice leftists. I will provide the names of the conspirators, the provinces in which the criminal conspiracies took place and the exact legal statutes broken. I will also be providing all of this information to the two publications upon which I found the conspiracies: so that they, with their larger platforms, can inform local law enforcement officials and hopefully the Conspirators will be brought to justice.

In this article, Rebel reports on a story scooped by The Hollywood Reporter about a docu-movie creator, Shiraz Higgins, attempting to get a theater showing to charge white men double the cost of admission.

From The Rebel

Last week, Higgins caused controversy by proposing that white males pay $20 to attend his film about stand-up comics. After a backlash, Higgins opted to lower the price for “White Cis-Straight Able-Bodied Males” to $15 while others would still pay $10.

Roberts said his society “does not believe in, nor does it practice, any form of a prejudicial pricing structure as proposed by Mr. Higgins” and added that “…BBTS feels it cannot support what it sees as irresponsible actions on the part of its organizer.”

The Blue Bridge Theatre Society may have halted the event’s sexism based on moral reasons: and good for them to do so. However, the unstated fact from either the Blue Bridge Theatre Society, the Rebel or the Hollywood Reporter which originally scooped the story…

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.”

More over, under Canadian Law, director Shiraz Higgins, who attempted to commit this act, is likely guilty of conspiracy.

465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Maybe Shiraz Higgins’s next documentary will be about the Canadian judicial system, or perhaps, even better, it’s penal system. One can only hope.

Next on the docket for the day. Your Brexit “Diane Abbott just said she wants to BAN WHITE CANDIDATES from standing in certain elections”

In this article, Your Brexit examines some of the details between various members of the Labor party attempting to give preferential treatment to potential black candidates by excluding all possible candidates aside from black candidates. racial discrimination in the name of fighting discrimination. Just as logically consistent and sound as one would expect from the communist wing of British Parliament.

From Your Brexit

This may be the sort of headline that you have to read four or five times before it truly sinks in, but the Shadow Home Secretary and Labour MP Diane Abbott has told a gathering in Brighton that Labour should start to build ‘all-black’ shortlists of candidates for local elections.

While speaking to a gathering called The World Transformed, which was an event organised in Brighton by the left-wing activist group Momentum ahead of the Labour Conference in Brighton, Abbott said that only fielding black candidates in certain constituencies would allow more MPs from ethnic minorities to enter the House of Commons.

I sent a letter regarding this, to Your Brexit, as they had an e-mail listed which permits one to contact the editorial staff. I informed Your Brexit of the following information which you are about to read. The e-mail was sent at 10:55pm central time, which was 4:55am London Time. So hopefully in a few hours now, as I write this, Your Brexit will be forwarding the information I sent them: directly to the authorities.

Now, this is the information I sent Your Brexit, however, it will be slightly more interesting presented here than was the e-mail, with the inclusion of all the advantages html provides of course.

I feel it is of some crucial importance that the article be updated to stipulate that if the labor does at Diane Abbott suggests: the labor party would be in federal violation of the UK Equality Act of 2010.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(5)If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others.”

In fact, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, Diane Abbott and others within the Labor party are already guilty of having conducted a criminal conspiracy to violate the Equality Act of 2010.

“Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”

You may find the last bit of the e-mail sent to Your Brexit entertaining.

I recommend you send this to the legal authorities while simultaneously publishing the information so that the public becomes aware that the labor party in fact conducted a criminal conspiracy. This will put public and political pressure on the authorities to act on the case, since it’s perpetrators are indefatigably guilty by their own public discourse which has been committed to the public record already.

Even if the conspirators are given the absolute minimum of sentencing, which is likely, it will still create a legal precedent under which anyone who thinks the labor party discriminated against them will then have a case to file in the civil courts.

Never miss an opportunity to make trouble for your enemy. Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
A Brexit Ally from Across the Pond.

I do like to provide others with helpful and uplifting advice whenever I can. I’m just that kind of guy.

Now, the question becomes, why would these leftists so often act in flagrant violation of the anti-discrimination and pro-equality laws which they themselves helped pass? The answer is quite simple and multi pronged.

1, they never expected these laws to be used against them.

With all the talk and propagandic rhetoric of “social justice” and “equality”, these laws were only put in place as a truncheon to wield against their ideological opponents. They never expected to have to follow the law, only to have something they could use as a weapon. The inclusion of non-specific identities such as race being any race or gender being any gender: was lip service included only for the purpose of quantifying the laws as being equal.

Vox Day in Chapter 6 of his book “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” lays this concept out quite clearly when he describes SJW entryist tactics and the establishment of a “Code of Conduct” which is routinely vague, nebulous, even vacuous in many instances. Obfuscated or dissembled terms and generalizations which can twisted to mean anything the SJWs want them to mean.

Which is wholly and completely different from the legalese which comprises most legal codes. Legalese functions on either black letter law, precedent or hard and fast rules. All properly written law does, in fact. For example, just look above at Canadian and English Law.

A may not do to B, any of aforementioned Q except under circumstance N. Hard and fast rules, black letter law. From there you got to precedent, in case # [Person Vs R] the ruling was P by rationale D provided.

Many people complain about legalese: I find it infinitely more accommodating than the fertile muck in which the SJWs prefer to dwell. I’ll provide a clip from Day’s book to give you a good example of the nebulous swamp which my oppositions likes to infest. I doubt Vox will mind, after all I’m plugging his work and this article isn’t pay to view.

“As noted in the previous chapter, the reason SJWs set up nebulous codes of conduct is that they want to be able to selectively impose discipline on those who question the Narrative in a manner they can interpret as “problematic” or “offensive” while avoiding the need to do so when one of their own breaks the rules. That’s why they do their best to avoid clear lines of demarcation and detailed specifications of what is against the rules and what the punishment will be. They will even do their best to avoid committing anything to writing; it is not an accident that Sir Tim Hunt’s wife received a telephone call from an individual at University College London who still remains publicly unidentified. Like insects scurrying about their business underneath a rock, SJWs prefer to operate in the dark and leave everyone else confused about what really happened.”

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Deontological Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy
View all posts by Observing Libertarian